Creationism or Evolutionism? Or could it be a combination of both?

a reply to: SuperFrog

Do you think there is a difference between truth and fact? The fetish of factualized truth, fossilized truth, the iron band of so-called unchanging truth, holds one blindly in a closed circle of cold fact. One can be technically right as to fact and everlastingly wrong in the truth.

If a scientist found some machine of unknown origin while on an exploration of an ancient city or a baron moon or planet would they only be concerned with what the machine could do and how it did it or would they also be interested in who built it and why?

Concerning other cultures concept of God really has nothing to do with this conversation. I will say this about it though, God is no respecter of persons and he responds to the faintest flicker of faith. At one point in time our ancestors believed in what we would consider childish beliefs about God. There is nothing wrong with that. Just as physical life evolves, so does the spiritual concept. There can be found, today on Earth, many levels in the evolution of religion. God does not judge someone on how they were raised and what their customs were.

Many of today's religions make the mistake of taking the stance that their religion is the only right one. Any other is wrong. That is not true. True wisdom will tell you that God, a universal God, would not judge that way.

As far as patterns, how about the golden ratio? It's found throughout creation. Sure, our bodies have obsolete parts, but we are not fully evolved yet either. Look at the complexity of a single cell, or for that matter, look at how our DNA replicates itself. You should check out the Ted talk from Alexander Tsiaras about conception to birth.

As far as which God, there is only one. Doesn't matter if you call him a giant snake, spaghetti monster, Allah or God it is the same God. They are differening, angular views of the same eternal reality.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: UB2120
I guess that is a matter of opinion.

Luckily, science is not a matter of opinion.

Really? What is your definition of theory and hypothesis?

a reply to: UB2120

Hello again UB,

"If you let Wisdom work her wonders, you will realize that God is something that no one religion could contain. Also, no one religion is right over another. Different cultures will view similar things in different ways and the subject of God is no different.
So when you think of the discussion of God within the sanctum of Science, please to use the narrow view of Christianity. It would have to be bigger and broader than that."

You present a quite reasonable viewpoint; I could even support such a position on the local school board.
But let's be honest. The real battle is between fundamentalist Christianity and secular humanism.

The strident voices that demand the presence of God in high school biology courses
have no tolerance for Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or pagan or satanic or what have you...

You and I are reasonable, but there are those who preach the vengeance of God.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: UB2120

Hello again UB,

"If you let Wisdom work her wonders, you will realize that God is something that no one religion could contain. Also, no one religion is right over another. Different cultures will view similar things in different ways and the subject of God is no different.
So when you think of the discussion of God within the sanctum of Science, please to use the narrow view of Christianity. It would have to be bigger and broader than that."

You present a quite reasonable viewpoint; I could even support such a position on the local school board.
But let's be honest. The real battle is between fundamentalist Christianity and secular humanism.

The strident voices that demand the presence of God in high school biology courses
have no tolerance for Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or pagan or satanic or what have you...

You and I are reasonable, but there are those who preach the vengeance of God.

I do agree that Christianity generally seeks to dominate the information and the way it is portrayed here in the US. In other parts of the world other religions do the same. The intolerance that many show toward other people's religion is shameful. Jesus would never have done such a thing. We would be much better off if people discussed the similarities between religions as opposed to focusing on the differences.

I always thought of it this way: God does the seven days of creation thing depositing life here on our happy little rock. Then he stands back and says, "I gave you free will. Live your lives as you like. You know what I want, now its up to you." And along the way he creates hundreds of thousands of years worth of history for us to marvel at. And one day we notice there is a conflict between the two.

And away we go. Free will or faith. Exactly the way He wanted it to be.

a reply to: UB2120

Objective scientific evidence is not an opinion. That your personal god (out of many) exists and has any hand in this world is.

>>
Evolutionists:

To start off they seem to utterly disregard that God had anything whatever to do with the creation of the Universe and all that pertains thereto. To include life itself. It all was an accident and by chance.
>>

Let me start out that the term "Evolutionist" alone is wrong. There are no Evolutionists, there is science and observation. We don't belong to a cult or church neither do we see us "competing" with religion, the creationists. For that reason I reject the term evolutionist.

Second..."utterly disregard God". It may be that some scientists utterly disregard God, some may actually NOT but nevertheless support the theory of evolution. BUT OF COURSE god is "utterly rejected" WITHIN the scientific theory since science is based on observable facts, not on myths, beliefs. This is a critical difference.

Your assumption that "evolutionists" believe it was all an accident and "by chance" is entirely wrong. Evolution is the exact opposite of "by chance".

>>
To combat the inconsistencies of that theory the Multiverse hypothesis was introduced. I don’t recall reading what they claim the source of these multiverses are, but logically it must be something outside of time and space.
>>

What inconsistencies? I think it's wishful thinking if you think that science introduced the multiverse theory because of inconsistencies with religion. It's you who mixes religion and science and then obviously finds inconsistencies. Not surprising.
>>
The theory is that we happen to exist in one of the multiverses that, by chance, everything worked out. After the Big Bang, which now is believed to have happened around 13.5 Billion years ago, all the necessary elements were created that will eventually form into all the heavenly bodies.
>>

Multiverses and "THE BIG BANG" do not really go together well. The Big Bang implies the birth of one single universe. Multiverse is the exact opposite of the idea of one, single universe.

>>
This brief description certainly does not cover all the details of the theory of evolution. The primary point I’m trying to show is that the theory of evolution believes everything happened by chance.
>>

To be honest, this brief description does not even TOUCH remotely what science/evolution is, let alone correctly. You just listed some cliches along with a bunch of incorrect assumptions.

>
I would be all for including God in biology and other science classes,
>

Yeah, welcome to the year 1524. WHY on earth would you want to include religion in science and biology?

The fact that religion WAS included in science and politics is the reason we are now hundreds of years behind than what we COULD be today without it. Keep your god in your church and pray and attend church and whatever. There is nothing wrong with a belief. BUT KEEP IT OUT OF SCHOOLS AND SCIENCE. We don't need to go back many hundreds of years, we don't want to RE-gress as a species but progress.

Nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, NOTHING AND NOTHING positive ever come out from mixing religion, science and politics. It's a horrible combination which only (and still today!) results in death, violence, murder, intolerance, injustice and the worst of humanity. So no, thank you!

originally posted by: UB2120
Do you think there is a difference between truth and fact? The fetish of factualized truth, fossilized truth, the iron band of so-called unchanging truth, holds one blindly in a closed circle of cold fact. One can be technically right as to fact and everlastingly wrong in the truth.

Truth is collection of facts, so not sure where you getting at... You are mixing your opinion of what truth is, and what facts are pointing out. For example, facts are that we see stars millions light years away, another collection of facts points that thanks to spectrum we are able to point what they are made off, collection of observation points to how they were made, what processes took place and how they live and die, including our own Sun... yet you call for something you envision as 'truth', idea born from what you also call 'childish beliefs about God' and I am not sure what makes your belief any different then those belief of old time...

originally posted by: UB2120
If a scientist found some machine of unknown origin while on an exploration of an ancient city or a baron moon or planet would they only be concerned with what the machine could do and how it did it or would they also be interested in who built it and why?

Of course - so who has built whole world and why? How fairy tales of old time do answer your questions?

originally posted by: UB2120
Concerning other cultures concept of God really has nothing to do with this conversation. I will say this about it though, God is no respecter of persons and he responds to the faintest flicker of faith. At one point in time our ancestors believed in what we would consider childish beliefs about God. There is nothing wrong with that. Just as physical life evolves, so does the spiritual concept. There can be found, today on Earth, many levels in the evolution of religion. God does not judge someone on how they were raised and what their customs were.

All this talk about God... all based around someone's belief...

originally posted by: UB2120
Many of today's religions make the mistake of taking the stance that their religion is the only right one. Any other is wrong. That is not true. True wisdom will tell you that God, a universal God, would not judge that way.

And you know this because...

originally posted by: UB2120
As far as patterns, how about the golden ratio? It's found throughout creation. Sure, our bodies have obsolete parts, but we are not fully evolved yet either. Look at the complexity of a single cell, or for that matter, look at how our DNA replicates itself. You should check out the Ted talk from Alexander Tsiaras about conception to birth.

As far as which God, there is only one. Doesn't matter if you call him a giant snake, spaghetti monster, Allah or God it is the same God. They are differening, angular views of the same eternal reality.

Not really... those all are quite different things, that you hope represent the same entity...

We can follow evolution of religion, from earlier gods of thunder, wind, earthquake to today's god that works in mysterious way... and conclude that all of this is based on false belief and false assumptions. As we know today what caused thunder, that there is no God on Olympus that strikes down earth with his 'thunder' rod... we learned how to protect our self from natural phenomenon... same applies for rest of religion belief... from life origin, evolution and to our future...

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: UB2120

Objective scientific evidence is not an opinion. That your personal god (out of many) exists and has any hand in this world is.

What would constitute proof to you?

a reply to: UB2120

Dunno, let's see what you've got.

a reply to: UB2120

Hello again, Eubie,

"... The intolerance that many show toward other people's religion is shameful...."

I have thought about this often, and it seems that many zealous believers
see it not as a difference of opinion, but as a struggle between Good and Evil.

Like George W. Bush famously said, "You are either with us or against us."

To some the Crusades never ended.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: UB2120

Dunno, let's see what you've got.

I am asking you, what would you consider proof enough for you? I think it is an answer that will vary from person to person. I believe a big step for many in determining that personal question is to shed what you think you know about God.

a reply to: UB2120

The evidence for gravity doesn't vary from person to person.
The evidence for germ theory doesn't vary from person to person.
The evidence for plate tectonics doesn't vary from person to person.
The evidence for quantum mechanics doesn't vary from person to person.
The evidence for special relativity doesn't vary from person to person.
The evidence for evolution doesn't vary from person to person.

And so on.

There is no objective evidence for your personal god, any more than there is for Zeus, Anubis, Thor, Ganesha, or any of the countless gods that have been devised and worshiped by man.

You don't lose a moment's sleep over not worshiping and following doctrine of all the other religions. Well, this is exactly how non-Christians feel about not worshiping and following the doctrine of your personal god. Any argument you make in favor of your personal god can be made for any one of these other gods. This is something you probably will never grasp because you are so arbitrarily invested in one god and religion out of the thousands in existence.

a reply to: SuperFrog
You seem to have preconceived notions about what you think God is. You refer to "old stories" and "fairy tales" often and that is not what I am talking about. If you would like to read something different about God try this: (www.urantia.org...).

The machine I am talking about is the Universe, not just our world. God created the universe to be inhabited. We, and by we I mean mortal beings of any inhabited planet, are but one of many types of beings God has created. For example some of the beings that God created, fully developed, are only concerned with the distribution and regulation of power. Another type was created to design and disseminate life on the planets of space.

I can understand the antagonism you have toward God when you know so little about him. If you are basing your idea of God solely on what the Christian faith teaches you have every right to question and doubt, but there is other information out there. Seek and you shall find, ask and you will receive.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: UB2120

The evidence for gravity doesn't vary from person to person.
The evidence for germ theory doesn't vary from person to person.
The evidence for plate tectonics doesn't vary from person to person.
The evidence for quantum mechanics doesn't vary from person to person.
The evidence for special relativity doesn't vary from person to person.
The evidence for evolution doesn't vary from person to person.

And so on.

There is no objective evidence for your personal god, any more than there is for Zeus, Anubis, Thor, Ganesha, or any of the countless gods that have been devised and worshiped by man.

You don't lose a moment's sleep over not worshiping and following doctrine of all the other religions. Well, this is exactly how non-Christians feel about not worshiping and following the doctrine of your personal god. Any argument you make in favor of your personal god can be made for any one of these other gods. This is something you probably will never grasp because you are so arbitrarily invested in one god and religion out of the thousands in existence.

How does any of that list disprove the existence of God? Those who would invent a religion without God are like those who would gather fruit without trees, have children without parents. You cannot have effects without causes; only the I AM is causeless. The fact of religious experience implies God, and such a God of personal experience must be a personal Deity. You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law. The intellectual earmark of religion is certainty; the philosophical characteristic is consistency; the social fruits are love and service.

Like so many, you seem to base your idea of God on the Christian belief system. That is not what I am talking about. Go here: (www.urantia.org...) and take a look at a few papers or search for specific topics. If you are basing your concept of God solely on the Christian doctrine then I understand why you think the way you do. I was in the same boat at one time.

The Urantia Book gives information in such a way as to allow the individual to choose their own path. After all religion is personal and it should not be spoon fed to you. You must feed yourself, so to speak. Over the last 20 plus years I've looked into almost all known religions (past and present). The vast majority seek to control you and the information you take in. They also attempt to socialize aspects of religion that should be personal. There is a place for group activities, but a good part of religion should be personal.

The highest evidence of the reality and efficacy of religion consists in the fact of human experience; namely, that man, naturally fearful and suspicious, innately endowed with a strong instinct of self-preservation and craving survival after death, is willing fully to trust the deepest interests of his present and future to the keeping and direction of that power and person designated by his faith as God. That is the one central truth of all religion. As to what that power or person requires of man in return for this watchcare and final salvation, no two religions agree; in fact, they all more or less disagree.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: UB2120

Hello again, Eubie,

"... The intolerance that many show toward other people's religion is shameful...."

I have thought about this often, and it seems that many zealous believers
see it not as a difference of opinion, but as a struggle between Good and Evil.

Like George W. Bush famously said, "You are either with us or against us."

To some the Crusades never ended.

Very true. To me it shows we are not as advanced as we think we are.

originally posted by: UB2120
The machine I am talking about is the Universe, not just our world.

Again, all your ideas are driven from...

originally posted by: UB2120
God created the universe to be inhabited.

What happened to purpose, reason behind this enormous creation? God was bored?

Most importantly, why create something that is 99.9999 (and many more 9 behind) uninhabitable and make it serve opposite purpose?

You see, not only that design does not make sense, but whole logic behind this idea is just not working.

originally posted by: UB2120
We, and by we I mean mortal beings of any inhabited planet, are but one of many types of beings God has created. For example some of the beings that God created, fully developed, are only concerned with the distribution and regulation of power. Another type was created to design and disseminate life on the planets of space.

I can understand the antagonism you have toward God when you know so little about him. If you are basing your idea of God solely on what the Christian faith teaches you have every right to question and doubt, but there is other information out there. Seek and you shall find, ask and you will receive.

I studied all major as well historical religions, but I am not religious - never have been. Your view is adopted for possible new age toward possibility that we are not only intelligent life form in cosmos (no, we are not only intelligent life force on Earth either), but its not far away even from Christian dogma and need for fatherly figure / creator. Prove me wrong - why do you need God / creator? What is his purpose and most importantly, what created him? (As late George Carlin in one of his shows used to say - it has to be him, as no women would ever f-up this bad )

originally posted by: UB2120
How does any of that list disprove the existence of God?

Which one? They can't all be real.

Any argument you make for your god I can make for any of the many other gods people have invented. Any argument you make against any of these other gods I can equally make against yours.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Philosophically speaking at some point in the eternal past God existed alone as total Deity, the I AM. Similar in concept to a single cell. Then God divided, so to speak, and the absolute of personal and non-personal reality was created. That being the Eternal Son and the Isle of Paradise. Then conjointly God the Father and God the Son created a coordinate being, the Infinite Spirit. Together they are the three persons of Deity, the Trinity. The Isle of Paradise exists outside of time and space, actually it is the source of time and space and energy. With this eternal foundation set the eternal purpose of creation was started. That purpose being the seven fold revelation of the three persons of Deity. There are seven possible associations of three persons.

The creative attribute seems to be primal in God and the desire to share life. We are far down on the scale of life. Actually we are the lowest form of created life that has the ability to comprehend God. All of the various forms of life have their own path of growth and destiny. Some are descending Sons and others, like us, are ascending Sons.

Many forms of life God creates fully developed and endowed for their task. Others, like us, must acquire knowledge and wisdom through experience. Our purpose is to grow through experience for nothing can replace actual experience.

How do you know that 99.9999% of the universe is uninhabited? The cosmos is unbelievably huge and part of the reason is because creation is not finished. It is still in the process of unfolding. Time is of no concern to God, so it does not matter how long it will take to complete.

I am a life form that has been endowed with mind. I am simply giving worshipful respect to the one who enabled me to have the opportunity for life. Here is a quote from the Urantia Book:

"The Universal Father never imposes any form of arbitrary recognition, formal worship, or slavish service upon the intelligent will creatures of the universes. The evolutionary inhabitants of the worlds of time and space must of themselves — in their own hearts — recognize, love, and voluntarily worship him. The Creator refuses to coerce or compel the submission of the spiritual free wills of his material creatures. The affectionate dedication of the human will to the doing of the Father’s will is man’s choicest gift to God; in fact, such a consecration of creature will constitutes man’s only possible gift of true value to the Paradise Father. In God, man lives, moves, and has his being; there is nothing which man can give to God except this choosing to abide by the Father’s will, and such decisions, effected by the intelligent will creatures of the universes, constitute the reality of that true worship which is so satisfying to the love-dominated nature of the Creator Father."


God is not a man or woman, though the best concept of God is that of a loving Father.

As for why life is hard consider this quote from the Urantia Book:

The uncertainties of life and the vicissitudes of existence do not in any manner contradict the concept of the universal sovereignty of God. All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities. Consider the following:

1. Is courage — strength of character — desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.

2. Is altruism — service of one’s fellows — desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.

3. Is hope — the grandeur of trust — desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.

4. Is faith — the supreme assertion of human thought — desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.

6. Is idealism — the approaching concept of the divine — desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.

7. Is loyalty — devotion to highest duty — desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.

8. Is unselfishness — the spirit of self-forgetfulness — desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

9. Is pleasure — the satisfaction of happiness — desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities.